Frayed Knot

And at [insert name here] park in PSL they fall 5-3

Helpful graphic from the Dazzler. [FIMG=300]https://dyn1.heritagestatic.com/lf?set=path%5B6%2F9%2F9%2F2%2F6992165%5D&call=url%5Bfile%3Aproduct.chain%5D[/FIMG] Having only previously heard Wayne via the radio, I had no idea he looked like that.

Trump prefers stories from North Korea.

A few highlights from the https://nypost.com/2020/02/19/unrelenting-steve-cohen-lingers-over-mets-sale-wants-sny/Cohen not going away file: - The Wilpons own 65 percent of the cable network in partnership with Spectrum and Comcast. Banking sources tell The Post the network is valued between $850 million-$1 billion, with gross earnings near $150 million annually. Considering the Mets are thought to lose $50 million in an average year, the network would be hugely useful in any sale of the organization. - “Cohen wants SNY, and he wants it at fair value,” one banker familiar with the deal said. “The team loses $50 million a year in a good year, so he wants SNY's revenue, and he might pay a small premium to never have to deal with Fred and Jeff ever again.” - “They [the Wilpons] clearly don't want to sell to Steve Cohen,” one former Mets employee said. “But who is going to come close to paying what he will?” ... sources say [any new Cohen] offer might not be much higher than the $2.6 billion he offered without SNY and with the five-year window in place. Those sources also tell The Post that Cohen is increasingly certain no bid will come close, even with SNY in the mix. - the specter of Cohen is said to be keeping other billionaires on the sidelines ... “He's definitely still out there,” one person following both the process and Cohen said. “But if no one else is [ready to show interest] because they're afraid he's going to blow out their offer, this thing might last forever.”

[FIMG=230]https://www.famousbirthdays.com/headshots/josh-brolin-9.jpg[/FIMG] Sez you!

=ashie62 post_id=32025 time=1582141753 user_id=90] Jed Lowrie is old and far removed from what he has done in the past Anything nice would be gravy

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Those eyebrows would make Josh Thole jealous. Josh Satin was the guy who was Mr. Eyebrows. [FIMG=220]https://www4.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Josh+Satin+New+York+Mets+Photo+Day+Ma94GnycidGl.jpg[/FIMG]

=smg58 post_id=31891 time=1581949326 user_id=62]In Lowrie's defense, he has been unlucky to an unforeseeable degree.

Lefty Specialist wrote: MLBPA would have reflexively fought any player sanctions. That's why Manfred didn't even try. He wanted this swept under the rug as quickly as possible and not dragged out by players fighting back. Just my .02. Yes, but he also decided that he needed to give the players immunity in order to get at the facts. Had MLB's investigations ended with something along the lines of: We investigated the complaints of various teams against the Astros but were unable to confirm what methods they may or may not have taken to cause the whistling and drum-banging signals which clearly took place. We will continue to monitor the situation going forward - then that would truly reek of a cover up or maybe just plain ineptness. At least this way the hits that Hinch & Luhnow took should discourage any other team from trying the same. Now players on other teams may make it a bigger mess anyway, but I'm willing to bet that any player on an opposing team would have gone along with the scheme if they were an Astro. That's why I don't really buy the high dudgeon from other position players. Pitchers, though, they have a right to be pissed. This may be roughly analogous to the union and their steroid stance. The union heads were willing to fight that right up until the supreme court until the rank & file slowly made it apparent that protecting the few at the expense of the many wasn't going to fly with them. It's one thing to hear from those on teams most directly affected -- mainly Dodgers & Yanx -- but when those without a specific dog in the fight like Trout or Markakis (neither exactly known as controversial or chatty types) start weighing in I think it signals that the players weren't going to treat this as their version of a police union's blue wall.

Well at least he doesn't have Coronavirus ... not that we know of anyway.

He also became the poster boy for those who believed there are players who couldn't or, in his case helped by the fact that he was Latin, wouldn't play in NYC. After starting out with parts of eight seasons (4,000 ABs) in Toronto and two more in SD where he compiled an OPS+ of just over 100 (more than respectable for an early '80s glove-first SS) he moved to the Mets where, still just age 31, he racked up a stunning 69 OPS+ while getting just over 200 PA. So back he went to Toronto for the remainder of the '83 season where his OPS+ of 115 made NYM fans wonder why they were getting the short end of the Canadian exchange rate. Then (like Bill Belichick) it was on to Cincinnati (one season, OPS+ = 105), after which he wound up in the Bronx for one year where he tumbled to a 75 (had he played well George might have been tempted to keep him and trade away that Jeter fellow). That he then went on to rebound during his third stint w/the Jays with OPS+'s of 121 & 125 as a mostly full-timer at ages 36 & 37 pretty much cemented the CPiNY label in many minds.

Where does it say anywhere that there were cameras no one else had access to? So how would that work I wonder? ... Maybe the GM contacts his counterpart in advance of their visit with an offer to share: Hey pal, looking forward to your three game series at our place this weekend. Maybe we can grab a beer after one of the games. Anyway, just dropping this email to let you know that we'll be having a camera aimed at your catcher's crotch all series long. And not the regular local network cam but the zoom lens one for picking up details ... y'know, like the ones Manfred said we are strictly forbidden from using. But in the interest of fair play we'd like to extend access of it to your team as well. You'll have to route some lines to your own dugout since at the moment it's just routed to ours so you'd have to get here early enough on Friday to start with that. I won't be in until game time (daughter's soccer practice) but just ask for Sal in maintenance and he'll let you in. Oh, and don't let on to Verlander that we'll allowing you in on this, he gets a little prickly at times and we'd like to resign him soon. All the best.

Frayed Knot wrote: The whole ARod=Met fan thing is probably at least 60% bullshit, and completely irrelevant even if not. He's throwing his name out there because the team is known to be available but he'd do the same if it were a different team on the block, certainly if it were a different big market team. Even if he isn't a full blooded Mets fan, Cohen is. And a consortium including both of them is better than the sale to some billionaire group with no love for the team or consideration of the fans. And it would certainly be better than the Wilpons keeping the team. I'm not arguing for the Wilpons, although the idea that they hate the Mets while Cohen would succeed because he'd smother them with love is, at best, misguided. At worst you're setting yourself up for a YUGE disappointment. Some folks around here will remember when nothing warmed the hearts of Met fans as much as the idea of the Dolans buying the club. Man, that was going to solve EVERYTHING!! What I am suggesting, and not for the first time, is that both the press and Met fans need to get over this idea that ARod is some life-long NYM/Keef Hernandez-loving* geek or, that even if that was all true, that it would have anything to do with whether or not it qualifies him as a good potential front man for a new ownership group. * ARod was such a Keith fan that for his first uniform number in baseball he chose ... #3 for Dale Murphy. He claimed to be a Murphy fan because, in the Dominican Republic, the only games they got on TV were via TBS. That story seemed to go away when the Braves dropped out of the Boras sweepstakes even before the Mets did during his FA year. Of course when he was later traded to the Yanquis and couldn't wear #3 he could have chosen Keith's #17 (hey John Flaherty you scrub backup catcher, here's $20 bucks, give me your number) but he opted instead for #13 in honor of Dan Marino, his apparent favorite athlete from his south Florida days. So it seems that Alex's oft-reported NYM/KH fandom had its limits and tends to only get dusted off when he thinks there's some NYC-positive publicity in it for him.

The whole ARod=Met fan thing is probably at least 60% bullshit, and completely irrelevant even if not. He's throwing his name out there because the team is known to be available but he'd do the same if it were a different team on the block, certainly if it were a different big market team.

nobody installed an electric spy system. Cameras trained on the catcher's signals which are then relayed to a monitor next to the dugout which are then relayed to the batter via various means (maybe even electronically) all in real time is SPECIFICALLY an electronic spy system! They stole signs on the road too, Not via cameras that the home team didn't have access to they didn't. And if you can pick up the new ones in no time flat they weren't particularly encoded were they? There's only so much one can "encode" with a flash of fingers and when you have a camera trained on those fingers for every pitch not only of that game but for all the previous games vs that team then, yes, it's not too hard to figure out what pitch corresponds to each new pitch.

The other team could change their signs all they wanted but the thing about real-time video is that you can then pick up the new ones in no time flat. Stealing signs isn't the crime here, if you can naked eye your way into their code then matzoh tov. The illegal part is the installation of an electronic spy system which gives the home team a Yuge advantage over the road dudes in deciphering what the other side is planning.

Flexing naked in front of the reporters while shouting; 'Fuck sign stealing, here's how I got all my hits: Check out the Gun Show', would have been a better job than what Jim Crane did.

And we have our JD Davis apology: “Looking back as a young guy, being exposed to that in 2017 and looking back and getting a full season now, of course it's regrettable and you feel ashamed to be a part of it.” [at the time] I didn't really think much of the [sign-stealing], going up there fresh and being part of a major league clubhouse and a major league guy, ... Maybe what they did was the norm. I had no idea. I had never been in another big-league clubhouse to compare the two. Looking back on the details of it, it's terrible. It's terrible for the game of baseball. Anybody who gets crowned the World Series champion, it's not only a big deal, but it's a big deal for the baseball world and how they have earned it and they have gone through the 162 games and through the playoffs. To have the incident is very unfortunate.” https://nypost.com/2020/02/14/j-d-davis-now-ashamed-of-role-in-astros-cheating-scandal/https://nypost.com/2020/02/14/j-d-davis-now-ashamed-of-role-in-astros-cheating-scandal/

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I voted Cohen for less. I'll go with Paul Lynde to block.

Willets Point wrote: 'Getting it Right' is like trying to measure all the fractals of a coastline. All those extensive reviews of the base runner's foot ultimately end up being judgement calls and they are going to vary depending on who is watching the video and how much sleep they got the night before. It's time to just shut the door and admit that it's a fool errand to try to get things that happen in the blink of an eye "right." Personally I agree with you. But the march of time in the replay era has shown no limit at which it will stop because the reason for implementing it in the first place -- Gotta get it Right!' -- is the reason to apply it to more and more situations. The NFL swore up and down that they'd NEVER use it for something so minor as adjusting the spot of the ball or to adding/subtracting seconds on the clock - but now do so for changes less than a yard or clock tweaks as little as two seconds. And when a judgement call (pass interference) went wrong in a playoff game, that condition was added as well. I've said this before here but I'll repeat because we're on the subject: I think MLB is afraid of two things if they eliminate the whole 'booth' consulting angle 1) that the home team will somehow manage to work out a relay to the bench that the visiting team will not, so if it's going to happen anyway then you might as well standardize how it work and 2) if only 'naked eye' judgements are permitted then the public will see 'wrong' calls (however infinitesimal) several times per game and MLB will be mocked for living in the 19th for having the ability to correct calls via technology but choosing not to ... and, make no mistake, there are TV/radio sports guys who will salivate over the idea of mocking baseball for being behind the times.

Willets Point wrote: I like replay but I think there should be a 30 second time limit on the time the official takes to review the video. We all know the https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVNlvnsQ828obvious https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lk6KQ-YaNjkblown https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlDTBDJbNE4calls that would be immediately overturned if replay existed in the past, and I think it's important to make sure those blown calls don't stand. What we don't need is 5-10 of crime scene investigation to determine if the baserunner's foot was a millimeter off the bag. If the official can see nothing obvious enough to overturn a call in 30 seconds or less, then the call on the field stands. This was, from the very beginning, the selling point in replay, that it would be 'limited' [as in only used to fix egregious calls] and 'quick' [as in there will be a time limit] and yet in the entire history of replay -- going back to the '80s w/the NFL -- once put into practice it's rarely been either. The problem is that once you set 'Getting it Right' as the goal then there becomes no logical end to the lengths you'll go to achieve that, as in why get only some calls right but leave other incorrect because some artificial time constraint ran out? No one planned, or thought, or wanted MLB to stop the game for two minutes at a time to check whether that runner's foot came off the base by 1/4 inch for 1/4 second, but as soon as they opened that door there was no way to stop those plays from being included. And while I've long advocated for some sort of delay/embargo on in-house video as a way to at least cut down on that type of play being challenged, I think MLB is reluctant to go that route because then we at home will see that the call should have been different and the side getting screwed will complain that we've got the technology but MLB is too stubborn/old-fashioned to use it.

Managers will now have up to 20 seconds to challenge a replay instead of 30 Still 10 or 15 seconds too many ... but it's a start. Or at least it will be if they decide to, y'know, actually enforce the rule every now and then. And does it say anything about a change in the number of challenges or does Mattingly still get 8 per game?

It's a garbage smear job anyway, but that post article is absolute trash. Just pure ignorant unadulterated garbage. You can tell the writer doesn't even understand the situation or key parts of it, and does reiterate the part about how Beltran 'lied' to the Post when he got hired. Which of course, is why he got fired. For not giving them the scoop. just pure trash. This article cites and links a new report from a different source [The Athletic]. It also uses quotes from Beltran contrasting what he said initially vs what he eventually confessed to knowing and doing: -- "I'm not concerned [about the investigation] ... I was not aware of the camera" vs "As a veteran player on the team I should've recognized the severity of the issue and truly regret the actions that were taken'', and it contains quotes from teammates saying not just how directly he was involved but how he orchestrated and maintained it often over the objections of others. "He disregarded [advice to put a stop to the system] and steamrolled everybody ... Where do you go if you're a young, impressionable player and this guy says, ‘We're doing this'?” Which of those issues turns this article into "pure ignorant unadulterated garbage"? btw, what team was it that Beltran came from when he arrived in Houston only to immediately inform his new team that their sign-stealing system was "behind the times"? Hard to remember at this point but it may have been one of those complaining the loudest recently.

I don't even know that 'tanking' is a scourge that needs addressing. The draft has existed for over half a century now but some seem to believe that teams have only recently discovered the concept that losing can better their draft positions. This all seems to stem from the recent and virtually flat-out admissions by basketball teams that they are in fact trying to do that. But baseball isn't basketball and the two draft are so wildly different that they're barely worth comparing. No amateur ballplayer has the immediate impact (on or off the field of play) that a young hoopster can have and baseball #1 overall picks aren't even that readily obvious they way it usually is in hoops. Plus, the concept of losing teams selling/trading off good players for future benefits has always been with us, always will be (pssst: it happens in European soccer too where they don't even have a draft) and that won't change whether there's one Wild Card team, two WC teams, or twelve WC teams. P.S. I like the way Vaccaro's piece sort of tweaks Sherman's by first linking it then slyly mocking his anti-purist argument. I've always hated when one falls back on the 'purist' or 'traditionalist' label, mainly because it gets pulled out whenever one wants to both generalize and mock the argument of those fans against something new. No, we're not against all new ideas, just the bad ones (see: H, D or the idea of runners placed on 2nd base in extra innings, etc.).

https://nypost.com/2020/02/11/mlbs-playoff-expansion-plan-is-preposterous/Mike Vaccaro, American Hero